Reappointment, Tenure and Promotion Workshop

1. Reappointment, Tenure and Promotion Workshop June 18, 2013

2. Agenda • Welcome and Introductions • Guide to Reappointment, Tenure & Promotion – Fran Watters & Mark Trowell • Senior Appointments Committee – Judith Daniluk • Insights – Fran Watters • Questions and Discussion

3. Our Objective • To provide Heads and Administrators with an understanding of the reappointment, tenure and promotion processes. • To support you in enabling the success of faculty members going forward for reappointment, tenure and promotion.

4. Reappointment, Tenure & Promotion • Tenure Streams • Criteria • Tenure & Tenure Clocks • Promotion Reviews • Procedures • For Assistance…

5. The Tenure Streams The Professorial Stream Assistant Professor Associate Professor Professor The Professor of Teaching Stream Instructor I Senior Instructor Professor of Teaching

6. The Criteria The Professorial Stream The Professor of Teaching Stream Service Service Educational Leadership Research Teaching Teaching

7. The Tenure Clock • The tenure clock begins on July 1 of the calendar year of hire • Extensions are granted for maternity & parental leaves (automatic) and sick leaves (on a case by case basis) • An individual may only be reviewed one time for tenure • All ranks, except Assistant Professor, may be reviewed early for tenure • A tenure track Assistant Professor may be reviewed early for promotion to Associate Professor and if granted, tenure will be automatic

8. The Tenure Clock

9. The Procedures The reappointment, tenure & promotion procedures are set out in Articles 5 & 9 of Conditions of Appointment for Faculty, and are supplemented by the Guide to Reappointment, Tenure and Promotion Procedures at UBC

10. Reappointment Reviews • The process for reappointment reviews is the same as the process for tenure and promotion reviews EXCEPT • External letters of reference are only required where the Head and/or Department are considering a negative recommendation • The President does not consult with the Senior Appointments Committee (SAC)

11. Periodic Review for Promotion

12. Promotion Reviews

13. Head’s Meeting • By June 30, the Head must meet with all tenure track faculty annually. • For tenured faculty, we encourage annual meetings or, at minimum, at least in the 2 years prior to a promotion review.

14. Head’s Meeting • It’s an opportunity to clearly note the strengths, deficiencies and opportunities for improvement • It is also important to provide advice re the CV & other relevant material required for the next review. • The Head & candidate must agree in writing on matters discussed.

15. The Initial File • Unless otherwise agreed, the faculty member’s dossier and all relevant documentation necessary for review must be submitted by September 15.

16. Eligibility to be Consulted • The Head must consult with eligible members of the departmental standing committee on all reappointment, tenure and promotion cases. • Each Academic Unit is required to have documented procedures regarding consultation with the departmental standing committee for all reappointment, tenure and promotion cases.

17. Letters of Reference • All tenure and promotion cases require 4 letters of reference. • The candidate provides 4 names, of which 2 must be solicited. • The Head then consults with the departmental standing committee on choosing the final list of referees.

18. What referees receive • The letter of request is only accompanied by the candidate’s CV and selected materials relevant for the assessment of scholarly achievements. • Teaching dossiers are usually only included for cases involving Senior Instructor & Professor of Teaching.

19. Tenure & Promotion Reviews Serious concerns? No Yes

20. Tenure & Promotion Reviews Negative? Yes

21. Tenure & Promotion Reviews Negative? Yes

22. Supplementing the File The University and the candidate have the right to supplement the file with new info at any stage prior to the President’s decision

23. For Assistance… • The Collective Agreement, in particular Articles 2 - 5 & 9 of Conditions of Appointment for Faculty • Guide to Reappointment, Tenure and Promotion Procedures at UBC for 2012/13 • Faculty Relations website: www.hr.ubc.ca/faculty_relations/tenure/ • Call us!

24. Senior Appointments Committee Professor Judith Daniluk, SAC Chair

25. Senior Appointments Committee • 20 person committee of professors (meets bi-weekly September through June) • Representation from all Faculties (includes 2 UBC-O; 1 Faculty Association) • Two Subcommittees: Associate and Professor (meets bi-weekly) • Reviews all tenure and promotion files (approx. 180/year) and makes recommendations to the President

26. SAC Terms of Reference • Advise the President on the merits of individual cases according to: • Concepts of procedural fairness • Appropriate standards of excellence across and within faculties and disciplines • The Collective Agreement and SAC guidelines • All relevant contextual matters • (Article 5.14 Agreement)

27. Examples of Contextual Factors • maternity or parental leaves • delays due to set up requirements for research or any other relevant information which may provide insight into timing issues • the candidate’s personal circumstances if relevant • Discipline and context specific opportunities within each department and faculty Article 5.14e; SAC Guide Section 5.5.1

28. Timing of Submitting Files to SAC • Meeting with candidate by June 30th • Candidate submits dossier by Sept. 15th • Completed dossier with recommendation to Dean by Dec. 1st • File to SAC by March 31st (end of April at the latest) • Prioritize – tenure and promotion cases (more time sensitive)

29. Head’s and Dean’s Letters • Of critical importance when file is reviewed by SAC: • Explain process, referee selection and assessment, and results of vote • Provide detailed explanation of any negative votes (don’t dismiss these) • Provide details of contextual issues, unique contributions (e.g. collaborative work, aboriginal scholarship, etc.) • Frame case within collective agreement

30. SAC Review Process • Files are reviewed in detail for merits & fairness by the Associate or Professor SC • Cases may be deferred pending additional information or procedural clarification • Cases are ranked: • ‘A’– no substantive issues or procedural concerns • ‘B’– negative recommendation by Dean – conflicting recommendation from Head & Dean – SAC members have questions for the Dean (approximately ¼ of all cases)

31. SAC Full Committee Review • ‘A’cases generally approved without substantive discussion by full SAC • ‘B’cases require full SAC discussion: • Dean joins SAC for discussion of the case • Vote taken in Dean’s absence • Result communicated to Dean

32. Recommendations & Decisions • SAC Chair informs the President of SAC recommendations and votes on each case • Chair provides the President with notes on SAC discussion with the Dean regarding all ‘B’ cases (notes added to candidate’s file) • President makes his recommendation to Board of Governors

33. Important Considerations in Preparing the Dossier • Familiarity with thecriteria specific to rank and promotion • Examples of evidence • External referee selection • Documentation of teaching excellence • UBC curriculum vitae

34. Professorial Stream Criteria • Collective Agreement: • Assistant Professor – A. 3.06 • Associate Professor – A. 3.07 • Professor (research stream) – A. 3.08 • Tenure – A. 4.01 (SAC Guide – Section 3)

35. Assistant Professor A. 3.06 • evidence of ability in teaching and scholarly activity • involved in scholarly activity • is a successful teacher • is capable of providing instruction at the various levels

36. Associate Professor A. 3.07 • evidence of successful teaching and scholarly activity beyond that expected of an Assistant Professor • teaching effectiveness (A. 4.02) • sustained and productive scholarly activity • ability to direct graduate students • willingness to participate, and participation in, the affairs of the Department and the University

37. Professor A. 3.08 NOTE: reserved for those whose contributions are considered outstanding • meet appropriate standards of excellence and have wide recognition in the field of their interest • high quality in teaching • sustained and productive scholarly activity • attained distinction in their discipline • participated significantly in academic and professional affairs

38. Tenure A. 4.01 • granted to individuals who have maintained a high standard of performance and show promise of continuing to do so • judged principally on performance in both teaching and in scholarly activity • service is important, but cannot compensate for deficiencies in teaching and in scholarly activity • evidence of competence is required both in teaching and in scholarly activity

39. Sustained Scholarly Contributions – the Professorial Stream • "Scholarly activity" means: • research of quality and significance • in appropriate fields – distinguished, creative or professional work of a scholarly nature • the dissemination of the results of that scholarly activity (Article 4.03; Section 3 – SAC Guide)

40. Types of Scholarship • “Traditional” Scholarship – A 4.03 & 3.1(i) SAC Guide • Scholarship of Teaching – A. 4.03(a) & 3.1(ii) SAC Guide • Professional Contributions – A.4.03(b) & 3.1(iii) SAC Guide

41. Important Considerations In Framing A Professorial Case • Cases may be framed as “blended” • Professional Contributions or Scholarship of Teaching may constitute all or a portion of the case for scholarly contributions & significance • Must be explicitly stated and considered from the outset, at all levels of the review process • Must be capable of assessment – referee assessment of significance & impact is critical

42. Some Sources of Evidence • Invited presentations/performances (national & international) • Article & grant reviews; editorial board work • Publications in high-impact venues in the candidate’s field (provide descriptions, impact factors, rejection rates) • Competitive grant funding – as PI and co • Citations of work; adoption of candidate’s work • Mentoring and publishing with grad students; grad students’ career accomplishments

43. Sources of Evidence contd. • Referees’ verification of impact • Awards and other forms of Recognition • Discipline specific norms – venues, grants, publications, authorship, conference participation • Quality vs. quantity • Service is important, but can’t substitute for excellence in scholarship and teaching

44. Referees – Professorial Stream • Choose well-qualified, arm’s length referees, preferably from universities/programs with stature comparable to UBC • Choose referees who are known leaders/experts in candidate’s area • Candidate should provide Head with detailed information on referees and this should be included in Head’s letter • National vs. International?

45. Teaching EffectivenessA. 4.02; SAC 4.3 • Effectivenessprimary criterion, not popularity • Command over subject matter • Familiarity with recent developments • Preparedness & presentation • Accessibility to students • Influence on intellectual & scholarly development of students • Willingness to teach range of subject matter and levels

46. Evidence of Teaching Excellence • Teaching awards and nominations beneficial but not essential (one form of evidence) • Student evaluations – quantitative and qualitative • Peer teaching reviews • Student supervision – professional, research, internships, residency, etc. • Multi-section course coordination • Professional development activities SAC 3.2 & Appendix 2

47. Documentation of Teaching Effectiveness A. 4.02 • Context is critical - identify norms in your unit/faculty, and how candidate compares • Provide quantitative and qualitativesummary and assessment of: • All teaching responsibilities • Student and peer evaluations • Graduate student supervision incl. expectations • Other teaching contributions, accomplishments, awards, etc. • Explanation for low scores

48. Professor of Teaching Stream Criteria • Collective Agreement: • Senior Instructor (2010 criteria) - A. 3.04 • Professor of Teaching – A. 3.05 (SAC Guide – Appendix 1)

49. Professor of Teaching Stream • A distinct career track with different expectations than traditional professorial ranks • Three pillars: teaching, educational leadership and service • Research productivity is notrequired • Excellence in teaching is not enough

50. Senior Instructor A. 3.04 • Old Agreement: teaching excellence and contributions to service • New Agreement (2010): • excellencein teaching • demonstrated educational leadership, involvement in curriculum development and innovation, and other teaching and learning initiatives • contributions to service